Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (the full content of a red-list entry), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed but not bloated; it front-loads the purpose ('Everything FDA prints for one red-list entry') and lists the components in a compact list. It is well-structured and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-record retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is complete. It specifies what is returned, where to get the ID, and implicitly confirms no side effects. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% coverage, including a description and example for the single parameter record_id. The description adds the useful context that IDs come from resolve_firm or list_alert_firms, but this is marginal beyond the schema's example. The baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving a single red-list entry in full, enumerating all the components it returns (firm name/address, alert, product code, reason, date, page, quote). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_alert_firms (which lists firms) and resolve_firm (which resolves IDs) by focusing on a single full entry.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states that record IDs come from resolve_firm or list_alert_firms, providing clear context for when to use this tool (after obtaining an ID from those tools). It doesn't explicitly list exclusion criteria for when not to use it, but the source-of-ID guidance is sufficient for a fetch-by-id operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.